Ethically-based clinical decision-making in physical therapy: process and issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification and consideration of relevant ethical issues in clinical decision-making, and the education of health care professionals (HCPs) in these skills are key factors in providing quality health care. This qualitative study explores the way in which physical therapists (PTs) integrate ethical issues into clinical practice decisions and identifies ethical themes used by PTs. A purposive sample of eight PTs was asked to describe a recent ethically-based clinical decision. Transcribed interviews were coded and themes identified related to the following categories: 1) the integration of ethical issues in the clinical decision-making process, 2) patient welfare, 3) professional ethos of the PT, and 4) health care economics and business practices. Participants readily described clinical situations involving ethical issues but rarely identified specific conflicting ethical issues in their description. Ethical dilemmas were more frequently resolved when there were fewer emotional sequelae associated with the dilemma, and the PT had a clear understanding of professional ethos, valued patient autonomy, and explored a variety of alternative actions before implementing one. HCP students need to develop a clear professional ethos and an increased understanding of the economic factors that will present ethical issues in practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.207 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".